Ah, humanity.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael R Weholt

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 8:01:22 AM7/14/01
to
You know, it never fails. You go along for a while, the sun's shining
most mornings, things are looking up, you start to feel sort of OK
about people in general, and then you wake up one morning and find some
asshole thinks it would be funny to post a bunch of bot crap.

Right, well.

--
mrw

Michael R Weholt

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 8:31:38 AM7/14/01
to
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote in
news:Xns90DE51B58F3...@166.84.0.240:

For those of you using Xnews, the following in your score file gets
rid of this crap (It gets rid of any article cross-posted from
news.admin.net-abuse.email to the rec* hierarchy. Adjust to taste):

[rec\..*]
Score:: -9999
Xref:.*news\.admin\.net-abuse\.email.*

--
mrw

Tim Illingworth

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 2:18:26 PM7/14/01
to
In article <Xns90DE56D7094...@166.84.0.240>

or for KA9Q: in \demon\spool\news\kill

Newsgroups: *news.admin.net-abuse.email*


Tim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Illingworth t...@smof.demon.co.uk Go not to Usenet for advice, for
Coveney, tim...@compuserve.com they will say both 'No' and 'Yes'
Cambs, UK tim...@cix.co.uk and 'Try Another Newsgroup'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rob Hansen

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 3:53:48 PM7/14/01
to
On 14 Jul 2001 12:01:22 GMT, Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com>
wrote:

The moronic are always with us, alas.
--

Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/

RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.

Cally Soukup

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 4:32:19 PM7/14/01
to
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote in article <Xns90DE51B58F3...@166.84.0.240>:

Yeah. And I woke up this morning to discover that the idiot spoofer is
using my email address to mailbomb people again. It appears that AOL
still hasn't pulled their account, in spite of multiple people
complaining and providing detailed evidence. *sigh*

--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall

Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 5:02:44 PM7/14/01
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Nate Edel <na...@keir.ml.spamblock.org> wrote:

>In tin, in .tin/filter:

>group=rec.*
>type=0
>case=1
>xref=*news.admin.net-abuse.email*
>score=kill
>#####

Yep, already got that.

-- LJM


Vlatko Juric-Kokic

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 5:42:49 PM7/14/01
to
On 14 Jul 2001 12:01:22 GMT, Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com>
wrote:

ab...@netscape.com, ab...@wanadoo.fr, ab...@aol.com are your friends.

vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/index.htm
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr

Del Cotter

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 6:29:13 PM7/14/01
to
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
Tim Illingworth <t...@smof.demon.co.uk> said:

>awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
>>For those of you using Xnews, the following in your score file gets
>>rid of this crap (It gets rid of any article cross-posted from
>>news.admin.net-abuse.email to the rec* hierarchy. Adjust to taste):
>>
>>[rec\..*]
>> Score:: -9999
>> Xref:.*news\.admin\.net-abuse\.email.*
>
>or for KA9Q: in \demon\spool\news\kill
>
>Newsgroups: *news.admin.net-abuse.email*

Or for Turnpike:

/^Newsgroups: .*news\.admin\.net-abuse\.email)/h

You get the picture.

(Sometime I want to check whether using the Xref: line instead will
speed Turnpike up, but I'm not actually suffering from slow news
collection, so it's not a priority)

--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk

Kip Williams

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 7:58:30 PM7/14/01
to
Vlatko Juric-Kokic wrote:
>
> On 14 Jul 2001 12:01:22 GMT, Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You know, it never fails. You go along for a while, the sun's shining
> >most mornings, things are looking up, you start to feel sort of OK
> >about people in general, and then you wake up one morning and find some
> >asshole thinks it would be funny to post a bunch of bot crap.
>
> ab...@netscape.com, ab...@wanadoo.fr, ab...@aol.com are your friends.

I wonder if it's somebody who fell off a trike and cracked their
head.

--
--Kip (Williams) ...at http://members.home.net/kipw/
TANJ: Impeach Clarence

Arwel Parry

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 7:17:26 PM7/14/01
to
In article <995134...@smof.demon.co.uk>, Tim Illingworth
<t...@smof.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <Xns90DE56D7094...@166.84.0.240>
> awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
>
>>Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote in
>>news:Xns90DE51B58F3...@166.84.0.240:
>>
>>> You know, it never fails. You go along for a while, the sun's
>>> shining most mornings, things are looking up, you start to feel
>>> sort of OK about people in general, and then you wake up one
>>> morning and find some asshole thinks it would be funny to post a
>>> bunch of bot crap.
>>>
>>> Right, well.
>>
>>For those of you using Xnews, the following in your score file gets
>>rid of this crap (It gets rid of any article cross-posted from
>>news.admin.net-abuse.email to the rec* hierarchy. Adjust to taste):
>>
>>[rec\..*]
>> Score:: -9999
>> Xref:.*news\.admin\.net-abuse\.email.*
>
>or for KA9Q: in \demon\spool\news\kill
>
>Newsgroups: *news.admin.net-abuse.email*
>

Or in Turnpike create a Custom rule:

/^Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,/h

Reviewing my kill file for this newsgroup I see that Odious is still in
there -- is it safe to take him out, yet?

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

Anna Feruglio Dal Dan

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 8:16:14 PM7/14/01
to
Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:

> I wonder if it's somebody who fell off a trike and cracked their
> head.

I thought it was more likely to be somebody who was pissed off at being
told "please, do not crosspost."

--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
substitute tin for nit to mail me
http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
"Hello, my name is Anna, and I write trilogies." -- Anna Mazzoldi

Erik V. Olson

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 8:32:58 PM7/14/01
to
On 14 Jul 2001 21:02:44 GMT,

SLRN users....

[*]
Score: -9999
Xref: news\.admin\.net-abuse\.email


You could replace [*] with [rec.*] or [rec.arts.sf.fandom], but bugger that.
If they're crossposting, they're up to no good. Better yet,

[*]
Score: -9999
Xref: :.*:

This kills *all* crossposts. Some think this is wrong.

--
Erik V. Olson: er...@mo.net : http://walden.mo.net/~eriko/

David T. Bilek

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 8:35:48 PM7/14/01
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:16:14 GMT, ada...@nit.it.invalid (Anna
Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:

>Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it's somebody who fell off a trike and cracked their
>> head.
>
>I thought it was more likely to be somebody who was pissed off at being
>told "please, do not crosspost."
>

No, apparently it's some nutter ex-pat Brit who now lives in India and
has vowed to destroy Usenet. Seriously.

-David

Mary Kay Kare

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 8:52:29 PM7/14/01
to
In article <3B50DBED...@home.com>, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:

> Vlatko Juric-Kokic wrote:
> >
> > On 14 Jul 2001 12:01:22 GMT, Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >You know, it never fails. You go along for a while, the sun's shining
> > >most mornings, things are looking up, you start to feel sort of OK
> > >about people in general, and then you wake up one morning and find some
> > >asshole thinks it would be funny to post a bunch of bot crap.
> >
> > ab...@netscape.com, ab...@wanadoo.fr, ab...@aol.com are your friends.
>
> I wonder if it's somebody who fell off a trike and cracked their
> head.
>

No, that's Gary Busey. While the name sounds like abuse, so far as I
know, he has never been guilty of any abuse except drug abuse.

MKK--okay, it was a motorcycle, but some people call them bikes

--
Lassitude: Scottish version of grrl power

Cally Soukup

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 9:11:23 PM7/14/01
to
Nate Edel <na...@keir.ml.spamblock.org> wrote in article <71147.32508$wr.1...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>:

> In tin, in .tin/filter:

> group=rec.*
> type=0
> case=1
> xref=*news.admin.net-abuse.email*
> score=kill
> #####

It sure looks well-formed, but I stuck that in my .tin/filter file and
nothing happened. *sigh*

Kate Schaefer

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 9:36:22 PM7/14/01
to
"Kip Williams" <ki...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B50DBED...@home.com...

> Vlatko Juric-Kokic wrote:
> >
> > On 14 Jul 2001 12:01:22 GMT, Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >You know, it never fails. You go along for a while, the sun's shining
> > >most mornings, things are looking up, you start to feel sort of OK
> > >about people in general, and then you wake up one morning and find
some
> > >asshole thinks it would be funny to post a bunch of bot crap.
> >
> > ab...@netscape.com, ab...@wanadoo.fr, ab...@aol.com are your friends.
>
> I wonder if it's somebody who fell off a trike and cracked their
> head.

I doubt it. This sort of attack is more likely to be aimed at Seth, or
possibly to have nothing to do with us whatsoever. It will go away
eventually, and in the meantime the killfiles get larger.


Andrew Stephenson

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 9:46:05 PM7/14/01
to
In article <9iqa8j$gu5$1...@wheel.two14.net> sou...@pobox.com "Cally Soukup" writes:

> Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote in article
> <Xns90DE51B58F3...@166.84.0.240>:
> > You know, it never fails. You go along for a while, the sun's shining
> > most mornings, things are looking up, you start to feel sort of OK
> > about people in general, and then you wake up one morning and find some
> > asshole thinks it would be funny to post a bunch of bot crap.
>
> Yeah. And I woke up this morning to discover that the idiot spoofer is
> using my email address to mailbomb people again. It appears that AOL
> still hasn't pulled their account, in spite of multiple people
> complaining and providing detailed evidence. *sigh*

You are in good company; I see they have done the same to Dorothy
Heydt. In her case, they are using a feed via blueyonder.co.uk,
another ISP who make it easy for loonies. The more recent batch
favour rr.com. I have posted to ab...@rr.com and expect they'll
do the necessary. Both ISPs have in the past shown themselves
willing to act. Why they don't fix the leaks in their systems is
another question.
--
Andrew Stephenson

Beth Friedman

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 9:50:40 PM7/14/01
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:17:26 +0100, Arwel Parry
<ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk>, <5k4Jf2AG...@cartref.demon.co.uk>,
wrote:

>Or in Turnpike create a Custom rule:
>
> /^Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,/h

What about for Agent?

--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Jul 14, 2001, 11:29:29 PM7/14/01
to
In article <995161...@deltrak.demon.co.uk>,

Andrew Stephenson <am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>You are in good company; I see they have done the same to Dorothy
>Heydt.

They have? Shucks. Or words to that effect. I'll forward your
post to Sean.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt

Kate Schaefer

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 12:29:48 AM7/15/01
to
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:GGHwD...@kithrup.com...

> In article <995161...@deltrak.demon.co.uk>,
> Andrew Stephenson <am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >You are in good company; I see they have done the same to Dorothy
> >Heydt.
>
> They have? Shucks. Or words to that effect. I'll forward your
> post to Sean.

They have, but it was easy to see that those words had nothing to do with
you, no matter what name was attached to them. Definitely not your voice.


Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 1:32:26 AM7/15/01
to
Nate Edel <na...@keir.ml.spamblock.org> wrote:
> xref=*news.admin.net-abuse.email*

Now if only someone could find something that works ON
news.admin.net-abuse.email, to keep that valuable newsgroup usable.

I marked all articles read yesterday. Today, there were 82,985 (!)
unread articles, of which perhaps 99.9% are garbage. They seem to
come from all over, are forged to appear to be from the usual posters,
and consist of semi-grammatical randomly generated content.

If they catch whoever is doing this, I suggest he be required to write
on a blackbaord "I will not post * to the newsgroups." Replace the *
with the totality of all the garbage messages he has ever posted. Any
estimates on how long this would take?

How can anyone hate free speech so much, to work so hard to try to put
an end to it?
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 1:38:31 AM7/15/01
to
David T. Bilek <dbi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> No, apparently it's some nutter ex-pat Brit who now lives in India
> and has vowed to destroy Usenet. Seriously.

Where are the Thugees now that we need them?

David G. Bell

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 3:44:16 AM7/15/01
to
On 15 Jul, in article <9ir67s$o4q$0...@216.39.145.104>
ka...@oz.net "Kate Schaefer" wrote:

Previously, most of the noise had been a three-line 'quote' followed by
a three-line piece of new drivel. Dorothy got a whole couple of screens
of drivel.

It might be something of an honour, but I'm sure she would willingly
forego the attention.


--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.

Eddie Cochrane

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 8:10:32 AM7/15/01
to
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:50:40 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:17:26 +0100, Arwel Parry
><ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk>, <5k4Jf2AG...@cartref.demon.co.uk>,
>wrote:
>
>>Or in Turnpike create a Custom rule:
>>
>> /^Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,/h
>
>What about for Agent?

Unfortunately Agent doesn't allow you to filter newsgroup articles on
the Newsgroups or Xref fields, which are the ones used in the above
examples. It will only kill filter on the Subject or From headers.
I've never quite understood the reason for this lack of choice, and
I've always regarded it as Agents biggest deficiency, but it has never
been much of an issue in the past. So far, I've found that since the
crap all seems to arrive in one block, I can mark it all, scan though
visually for the names of rasseff posters, and for variants of current
thread titles and un0mark those, then delete. It's still a pain
though, and I'm beginning to wonder about trying Xnews instead.
--
Cheers, Eddie Cochrane

Del Cotter

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 4:27:15 AM7/15/01
to

Whatever happened to the nutter who lived in Canada and automatically
sent out cancels to cancel messages? You could say he won, since no-one
honours cancels anymore :-(

--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk

Del Cotter

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 6:06:34 AM7/15/01
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
Arwel Parry <ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> said:

>Tim Illingworth <t...@smof.demon.co.uk> writes


>>>For those of you using Xnews, the following in your score file gets
>>>rid of this crap (It gets rid of any article cross-posted from
>>>news.admin.net-abuse.email to the rec* hierarchy. Adjust to taste):

>>> Xref:.*news\.admin\.net-abuse\.email.*

>>Newsgroups: *news.admin.net-abuse.email*


>
>Or in Turnpike create a Custom rule:
>
> /^Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,/h

Arwel, you ought to escape out the dots with backslashes (although I
don't think it's likely to do much harm in this case). I'd also add a
".*" between "Newsgroups: " and "news", to allow for the possibility of
nana.email appearing elsewhere in the Newsgroups: line.

--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk

Arwel Parry

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 11:39:39 AM7/15/01
to
In article <rxHNn6Dq...@branta.demon.co.uk>, Del Cotter
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes

Yes, I noticed you'd supplied the backslashed version when you posted in
this thread, Del. I got my syntax directly out of the help screen (in
Turnpike 5 -- I tried beta 3 of Turnpike 6 for a few weeks, but decided
to go back to 5 until all the bugs are sorted out) and it seems to work
(or else the cross-posts stopped).

Michael Kube-McDowell

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 3:28:39 PM7/15/01
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:35:48 GMT, dbi...@mediaone.net (David T. Bilek)
carefully left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:

>No, apparently it's some nutter ex-pat Brit who now lives in India and
>has vowed to destroy Usenet. Seriously.

Is that the person referred to by the handle "Bloxy"?

Joyce Reynolds-Ward

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 3:52:08 PM7/15/01
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 13:10:32 +0100, Eddie Cochrane
<edd...@cobrabay.org> wrote:

snip

>Unfortunately Agent doesn't allow you to filter newsgroup articles on
>the Newsgroups or Xref fields, which are the ones used in the above
>examples. It will only kill filter on the Subject or From headers.
>I've never quite understood the reason for this lack of choice, and
>I've always regarded it as Agents biggest deficiency, but it has never
>been much of an issue in the past. So far, I've found that since the
>crap all seems to arrive in one block, I can mark it all, scan though
>visually for the names of rasseff posters, and for variants of current
>thread titles and un0mark those, then delete. It's still a pain
>though, and I'm beginning to wonder about trying Xnews instead.

What I've been doing for Free Agent is checking the first title in the
block, and the size of the file. The junk has been showing up in
blocks of weird headers with 7-10 listed in the file size...so I
merrily skip through killing all threads until I reach something which
appears to be of substance, check it out, then act appropriately.

jrw

David T. Bilek

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 3:50:16 PM7/15/01
to

Sorry, I've exhausted my Usenet-rumor knowledge base.

-David

Erik V. Olson

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 3:53:38 PM7/15/01
to

He(?) wasn't a nutter. The problem was certain groups were forging cancels,
trying to stop discussion, or just trying to break Usenet as a whole.
Cancelling Cancels fixed that.

The real problem is Usenet is built on the theory that people will be
responsible.

Randolph Fritz

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 4:11:07 PM7/15/01
to
In article <slrn9l4gli...@calcium.physiciansedge.com>,

Erik V. Olson wrote:
>
> The real problem is Usenet is built on the theory that people will be
> responsible.
>

Well, it was built by and for a particular community which it has now
far outgrown. It was much more governed in the early years; most
abuses that have become common would, in the early times, have lead to
discipline or outright banning of abusers. And, finally, there are
not people willing to spend the time and effort to make substantive
improvements to it and it would be very difficult to get the large
ISPs to adopt such improvements. Which is a shame.

Randolph

Cheryl Martin

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 4:20:36 PM7/15/01
to

No. HipCrime is a whole nother kettle of kookiness. Bloxy's is using
some of HipCrime's "tools" though.

Cheryl
--
% Moderator: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, soc.personals %
% Personal: http://www.geocities.com/grumpywitch %
% Arizona Poly: http://www.geocities.com/grumpywitch/azpoly.html %

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 4:47:57 PM7/15/01
to
rand...@panix.com (Randolph Fritz) writes:
>
> Well, it was built by and for a particular community which it has now
> far outgrown. It was much more governed in the early years; most
> abuses that have become common would, in the early times, have lead to
> discipline

*SERIOUS* discipline, too.

For the early users, getting cut off from the `net would cause
them to fluck out of school.

--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 4:50:26 PM7/15/01
to
rand...@panix.com (Randolph Fritz) writes:
> And, finally, there are
> not people willing to spend the time and effort to make substantive
> improvements to it and it would be very difficult to get the large
> ISPs to adopt such improvements.


Now that's just plain false on it's face.

I've met some of the people who have spent that "time and
effort". There have indeed been "substantive improvements", both to
the underlying technological plumbing (the new servers, automoderation
software, spam suppression, etc), and to the "soft tech" such as the
group creation procedures, the UDP, etc.

Alison Hopkins

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 4:40:15 PM7/15/01
to

Mark Atwood wrote in message ...

>rand...@panix.com (Randolph Fritz) writes:
>> And, finally, there are
>> not people willing to spend the time and effort to make substantive
>> improvements to it and it would be very difficult to get the large
>> ISPs to adopt such improvements.
>
>
>Now that's just plain false on it's face.
>
>I've met some of the people who have spent that "time and
>effort". There have indeed been "substantive improvements", both to
>the underlying technological plumbing (the new servers, automoderation
>software, spam suppression, etc), and to the "soft tech" such as the
>group creation procedures, the UDP, etc.
>

Good Lord, that wouldn't have been because the Usenet community worked on
it, would it.

Ali


Vlatko Juric-Kokic

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 5:36:49 PM7/15/01
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 13:10:32 +0100, Eddie Cochrane
<edd...@cobrabay.org> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:50:40 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
>wrote:
>>

>>What about for Agent?
>Unfortunately Agent doesn't allow you to filter newsgroup articles on
>the Newsgroups or Xref fields, which are the ones used in the above
>examples. It will only kill filter on the Subject or From headers.
>I've never quite understood the reason for this lack of choice, and
>I've always regarded it as Agents biggest deficiency, but it has never
>been much of an issue in the past.

Er, there *is* a possibility. Go to Group -> View Messages -> Advanced
and then play with boolean operators until satisfied.

I admit I've just discovered it and have no idea how you do anything
there.

vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/index.htm
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr

Del Cotter

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 3:09:29 PM7/15/01
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
Arwel Parry <ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> said:

>Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes

>>> /^Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,/h
>>
>>Arwel, you ought to escape out the dots with backslashes (although I
>>don't think it's likely to do much harm in this case). I'd also add a
>>".*" between "Newsgroups: " and "news", to allow for the possibility of
>>nana.email appearing elsewhere in the Newsgroups: line.
>
>Yes, I noticed you'd supplied the backslashed version when you posted in
>this thread, Del. I got my syntax directly out of the help screen (in
>Turnpike 5 -- I tried beta 3 of Turnpike 6 for a few weeks, but decided
>to go back to 5 until all the bugs are sorted out) and it seems to work
>(or else the cross-posts stopped).

I never touch Turnpike betas, but I hear good things about TP6, and
can't wait to hear it's been released.

(Reflow quoted text, yay!)

--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk

Mary Kay Kare

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 7:05:27 PM7/15/01
to
In article <slrn9l4gli...@calcium.physiciansedge.com>,
er...@mvp.net wrote:

Just like, oh, fandom or anarchy or Libertarian utopias or or or

MKK

Andrew Stephenson

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 6:53:53 PM7/15/01
to
In article <9ir9ta$g4b$1...@saltmine.radix.net>
k...@KeithLynch.net "Keith F. Lynch" writes:

> [ floods of rubbish generated by loonies and a humorous way to
> punish them, once caught ]


>
> How can anyone hate free speech so much, to work so hard to try
> to put an end to it?

I dunno. Do they actually get as far as thinking about it as a
free speech issue? They have a target they hate, inches in front
of their noses, and that's all they need, in their tiny universe.
--
Andrew Stephenson

Nicklas Andersson

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 7:47:11 PM7/15/01
to

...crossroads in the middle of the city without a signal system.

/ Nicklas
--
holo...@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~hologram/
"She refuses to believe that an ancient, super-intelligent race of cone-
shaped beings inhabiting pre-Pleistocene times are responsible for the
breakup. I've got to convince her; I've got to recover her love."
-- William Browning Spencer, "Resume with monsters"

Nicklas Andersson

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 7:56:56 PM7/15/01
to

But if they hate it so much, why even bother to put down all
this work just for destroying it?

I don't think I'll even understand people like that, no matter
how hard I try.

Andrew Stephenson

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 8:18:44 PM7/15/01
to
In article <slrn9l4b6h.3v...@algonet.se>
holo...@algonet.se "Nicklas Andersson" writes:

> But if they hate it so much, why even bother to put down all
> this work just for destroying it?
>
> I don't think I'll even understand people like that, no matter
> how hard I try.

You and me both, kiddo... And all those other guys... And those
in the next country/continent... Wild guess: by the loonies' odd
standards, all that work may "confirm" their own cleverness and
superiority. Lots of people are very clever but not very wise.
--
Andrew Stephenson

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 8:24:15 PM7/15/01
to
"Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> >
> >I've met some of the people who have spent that "time and
> >effort". There have indeed been "substantive improvements", both to
> >the underlying technological plumbing (the new servers, automoderation
> >software, spam suppression, etc), and to the "soft tech" such as the
> >group creation procedures, the UDP, etc.
> >
>
> Good Lord, that wouldn't have been because the Usenet community worked on
> it, would it.

No. It wouldn't.

The "USENET community" has never written a single line of code, has
never set up or run a newsserver, has never applied a PGP patch
script, has never running the ISC website, has never written a
moderator aid, has never moderated a newsgroup, did not join the UVV.

About the only things one can say "USENET community" has ever done, is
play with this wonderful toy, and participated in the various creation
votes.


Or are you saying that the "USENET community" has somehow accidently
turned into an emergent "Chinese Room" AI?

Erik V. Olson

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 8:31:58 PM7/15/01
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:05:27 GMT, Mary Kay Kare <mar...@kare.ws> wrote:
>> Erik V. Olson wrote:
>> The real problem is Usenet is built on the theory that people will be
>> responsible.
>
>Just like, oh, fandom or anarchy or Libertarian utopias or or or

Or.

Avram Grumer

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 8:41:29 PM7/15/01
to
In article <m3k819e...@flash.localdomain>, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com>
wrote:

> "Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> >
> > Good Lord, that wouldn't have been because the Usenet community
> > worked on it, would it.
>
> No. It wouldn't.
>
> The "USENET community" has never written a single line of code, has
> never set up or run a newsserver, has never applied a PGP patch
> script, has never running the ISC website, has never written a
> moderator aid, has never moderated a newsgroup, did not join the UVV.

I assume that what you're arguing here is that these developments were
made by individual programmers, and therefore not by a community, right?

> About the only things one can say "USENET community" has ever done, is
> play with this wonderful toy, and participated in the various creation
> votes.

You can't have it both ways, Mark. If the improvements were made by
individuals, and not a community, then the same is true of use and
voting. And likewise everything that you don't like about communities.

--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a
trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Doug Wickstrom

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 9:04:54 PM7/15/01
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 13:10:32 +0100, in message
<j513ltk1jlgog7oan...@4ax.com>
Eddie Cochrane <edd...@cobrabay.org> excited the ether to say:

>On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:50:40 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:17:26 +0100, Arwel Parry
>><ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk>, <5k4Jf2AG...@cartref.demon.co.uk>,
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Or in Turnpike create a Custom rule:
>>>
>>> /^Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,/h
>>
>>What about for Agent?
>Unfortunately Agent doesn't allow you to filter newsgroup articles on
>the Newsgroups or Xref fields, which are the ones used in the above
>examples. It will only kill filter on the Subject or From headers.

This isn't entirely true. Agent can filter on other fields, but
only after download. See:
http://jlbradley.home.att.net/REGULAR.HTM#IV.D
for a discussion of the problem, and links to client-side news
filters add-ons that can be used with Agent and also with clients
that cannot filter at all.

--
Doug Wickstrom
"It's like an Alcatraz around my neck."
--Boston Mayor Thomas Menino on the shortage of city parking spaces

Robert Sneddon

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 10:35:45 AM7/15/01
to
In article <9iqs2m$voq$0...@216.39.145.104>, Kate Schaefer <ka...@oz.net>
writes
>I doubt it. This sort of attack is more likely to be aimed at Seth, or
>possibly to have nothing to do with us whatsoever. It will go away
>eventually, and in the meantime the killfiles get larger.

It's a trollfest. There are open servers through which they post these
bot-generated screeds. The crossposts are designed to suck other people
in. The bot-runners grep the targeted newsgroups and recover and reuse
usernames and addresses, hence the familiar names turning up in the
From: and Subject: headers in the bot-spew.

At a guess, the use of rec.arts.sf.fandom in the xpost list is simply
because it's an active group with a lot of posters. The idea is to
reduce the number of xposts to a minimum as that keeps the spew out of
many filters that are set to reject any message xposted to, say, over
five groups. This requires the bot-runner to choose an active newsgroup,
like this one, in order to maximise the number of people targeted. There
is also a presumption of naivety among a non-flame non-technical group
like this; we are expected to shoot off complaints to the putative
senders of the bot-posts by hitting "Reply-to-sender".

What to do, if you decide you have to something?

1. Filter. If your newsreader can't filter, it is best to either get one
that does, or temporarily suspend your downloading of this group for a
couple of days, if you can't stand the bot-spew.

2. Inform the owners of the NNTP-Posting-Host: in the headers. This is
where the spew came from, and it is about the only line in the post's
header that is at all trustworthy. Nearly everything else can be, and
will be faked. You can always email to postmaster@ if there is no
clearly-specified abuse@ address (and the X-Abuse lines *can* be faked.
This can lead to some innocent target getting fifty thousand complaints
in his personal mailbox).

Don't hit reply-to-sender. Don't answer back (there's no-one
listening). Take a deep breath, and move on.

--

Robert Sneddon

Randolph Fritz

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 4:10:03 AM7/16/01
to

Me:
> Well, it was built by and for a particular community which it has
> now far outgrown. It was much more governed in the early years;
> most abuses that have become common would, in the early times, have
> lead to discipline

Mark Atwood:


>
> *SERIOUS* discipline, too.
>
> For the early users, getting cut off from the `net would cause
> them to fluck out of school.
>

Blink.

(Raps cane on floor.) Mark, time was, Usenet wasn't part of "the
'net" at all. The integration of Usenet into the internet came fairly
late in Usenet's development; being cut off from Usenet didn't mean
much at the beginning.

> rand...@panix.com (Randolph Fritz) writes:
>> And, finally, there are
>> not people willing to spend the time and effort to make substantive
>> improvements to it and it would be very difficult to get the large
>> ISPs to adopt such improvements.

In article <m3y9ppr...@flash.localdomain>, Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> Now that's just plain false on it's face.
>
> I've met some of the people who have spent that "time and
> effort". There have indeed been "substantive improvements", both to
> the underlying technological plumbing (the new servers, automoderation
> software, spam suppression, etc), and to the "soft tech" such as the
> group creation procedures, the UDP, etc.
>

Fair enough. I'd say, substantive changes in functionality; there
have been improvements in operation. It's very striking to me.
Usenet was designed as a primarily text service because of interface
and bandwidth limitations (when I hooked a leaf node onto the net, I
was using a 1200bps modem.) It didn't have much security because
everyone it was operated by a small research community and net abusers
could be trivially identified. It was operated by research labs and
universities; Bell Labs was especially prominent because they didn't
use internet technology at all--they had their own stuff. Most of the
arts groups are packed into rec.* because the overwhelming majority of
early users were researchers and computer professionals for whom art
was a hobby. There were no volume limitations because there were no
groups we would now consider high-volume.

As Usenet has evolved, it now carries an enormous amount of
pornography, an enormous amount of bandwidth goes into spam (most of
it eventually cancelled), and it is enormously subject to abuse; the
new crime of spamming was invented here. It has become a heavily
commericialized service, and many of the social groups are so high
volume that they demand major daily time committments to maintain a
substantial presence.

Directions it might develop in include:
- Improved authentication & better control of abuse. As it is, a
single crank can seriously impair the functionality of Usenet; a
concerted, well-funded attack would not doubt shut it down,
perhaps permanently.
- Carrying both visually richer text (italics!) and modestly-sized graphics.
- Integrated archival facilities; I appreciate Google groups, but it
is, after all, a private service and could shut down tomorrow, or
sudden chose to censor the archives.
- Experimentation with volume control, with the intention of
developing areas in Usenet which are accessible to people willing
to spend only modest amounts of time.
- Use of multi-cast distribution; so far as I know the basic
protocols are still point-to-point, despite fairly extensive
multi-cast internet service. (This was actually tried in 1994; it
has not been deployed, AFAIK.)
- Client improvements that would make Usenet accessible to joe user,
rather than just us expents.

There's a lot left to be done, if someone chooses to pursue it; what
we have now has not exhausted the possibilities by any means.

Randolph

References:

On multi-cast Usenet (authentication is also addressed)
<http://www.usenix.org/
publications/library/proceedings/sf94/full_papers/lidl.a>

A Usenet performance study,
<http://www.research.compaq.com/wrl/projects/newsbench/>

I cannot find anything on carrying multi-media traffic on Usenet.

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 12:19:02 PM7/15/01
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>Nate Edel <na...@keir.ml.spamblock.org> wrote:
>> xref=*news.admin.net-abuse.email*

>Now if only someone could find something that works ON
>news.admin.net-abuse.email, to keep that valuable newsgroup usable.

>I marked all articles read yesterday. Today, there were 82,985 (!)
>unread articles, of which perhaps 99.9% are garbage. They seem to
>come from all over, are forged to appear to be from the usual posters,
>and consist of semi-grammatical randomly generated content.

A note of praise for EFN (from someone still a bit resentful over
a claim, from someone who -doesn't- know anything about filters,
that if I were seeing -any- spam at all I "should get a -real-
ISP"). I saw a few of the initial rush of garbage, but nothing
since. They've done an extremely effective job of filtering out
the attack and leaving (as far as I can tell) legitimate messages
alone. Cool beans.

>How can anyone hate free speech so much, to work so hard to try to put
>an end to it?

I doubt that much thought goes into it. I don't think, in fact,
that there's any though of consequences, but only, "Look at this
cool thing I can do!"

-- LJM

Ross Smith

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 7:59:32 AM7/16/01
to
Randolph Fritz wrote:
>
> - Use of multi-cast distribution; so far as I know the basic
> protocols are still point-to-point, despite fairly extensive
> multi-cast internet service. (This was actually tried in 1994; it
> has not been deployed, AFAIK.)

We've been working on this, and have an implementation in use with our
customers now. We're broadcasting our full newsfeed over multicast, and
people can pick up whichever groups they're interested in. (We're also
using it to send the newsfeed to our own news servers and several other
ISPs around NZ and Australia.)

It's described at:
http://www.ihug.co.nz/ultra/multicast/index.html

I wrote most of the software involved (and the web pages).

(The newsfeed to private customers is only available in Auckland, so I
hope this message doesn't count as spam :-) )

--
Ross Smith ....................................... Auckland, New Zealand
r-s...@ihug.co.nz ......................... http://halflife.mani.ac.nz/
"A wise man learns from the mistakes of others; a fool
learns only from his own." -- Gen. Aleksandr Lebed

Jo Walton

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 8:04:54 AM7/16/01
to
In article <slrn9l58ar....@panix6.panix.com>
rand...@panix.com "Randolph Fritz" writes:

> Directions it might develop in include:
> - Improved authentication & better control of abuse. As it is, a
> single crank can seriously impair the functionality of Usenet; a
> concerted, well-funded attack would not doubt shut it down,
> perhaps permanently.

That's a really good idea.

> - Carrying both visually richer text (italics!) and modestly-sized graphics.

What on earth for? Because everything needs to be all singing all dancing?

The wonderful thing about usenet is that it is a text medium. You want
graphics, use the web.

> - Integrated archival facilities; I appreciate Google groups, but it
> is, after all, a private service and could shut down tomorrow, or
> sudden chose to censor the archives.

Usenet is conversation. An archive is fine, but not necessary. I stopped
no-archiving my posts when Google got Deja, because I trust Google.

> - Experimentation with volume control, with the intention of
> developing areas in Usenet which are accessible to people willing
> to spend only modest amounts of time.

There are moderated groups and .announce groups already.

_Social_ groups (see those italics!) where you spend only modest
amounts of time are also available -- soc.singles.moderated is
mostly pretty low traffic, frex. But I can't see how you could
limit that deliberately and have a social group at all -- if people
can't post what they want to say you don't have a social group.

It's very interesting to look at the different dynamic of different
newsgroups, socially. People are here because they want to be. I'm
on mailing lists where it's a serious pain to post and you don't
ever, ever, post off-topic. They're useful resources, but they are
not and never can be social groups, nor could you have a social
group that worked like that.

> - Use of multi-cast distribution; so far as I know the basic
> protocols are still point-to-point, despite fairly extensive
> multi-cast internet service. (This was actually tried in 1994; it
> has not been deployed, AFAIK.)

If you say so. Is this a compatibility issue?

> - Client improvements that would make Usenet accessible to joe user,
> rather than just us expents.

Uh... Randolph, you were just complaining about modest amounts of time.
You want newsgroups ten times this size?

It doesn't require experts now. Just knowing it's here, really. That's
something that could be done, but better subversively by telling people
who would like it than by broadcasting its easy graphic appeal and
killing what's good about it.



> There's a lot left to be done, if someone chooses to pursue it; what
> we have now has not exhausted the possibilities by any means.

I expect nobody improves it because the suggestions make them want to
put their heads in buckets.

--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
*THE KING'S PEACE* out now *THE KING'S NAME* out in November from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk

Doug Wickstrom

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 9:30:26 AM7/16/01
to
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:04:54 GMT, in message
<995285...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>
J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) excited the ether to say:

>In article <slrn9l58ar....@panix6.panix.com>
> rand...@panix.com "Randolph Fritz" writes:

>> - Carrying both visually richer text (italics!) and modestly-sized graphics.
>
>What on earth for? Because everything needs to be all singing all dancing?

Unicode would be a useful thing. As it is, there are a multitude
of competing double-byte encoding systems (and, as usual,
Microsoft has their own, non-compliant schemes). Yes, it would
double the size of plain-text messages, but they would still be
plain text.

>The wonderful thing about usenet is that it is a text medium. You want
>graphics, use the web.

I don't know if I would go that far, but I find it very useful to
have full control over how I see a newsgroup message presented to
me, in terms of font type, size, and format. I don't want to see
people playing with their formatting, I want the content without
bells and whistles. Some of that content comes in ways that
cannot be represented by the Latin alphabet, but plain text is
what I want to see.

--
Doug Wickstrom
"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion,
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning,
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion." --Unknown

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 11:15:10 AM7/16/01
to
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrn9l58ar....@panix6.panix.com>
> rand...@panix.com "Randolph Fritz" writes:

>> Directions it might develop in include:
>> - Improved authentication & better control of abuse. As it is, a
>> single crank can seriously impair the functionality of Usenet; a
>> concerted, well-funded attack would not doubt shut it down,
>> perhaps permanently.

> That's a really good idea.

I've thought for years that some shared-moderation system must be
possible -- not so much for concerted. mechanical abuse (which must
also be dealt with) but for abusive conversation. A troll should not
be able to launch a week-long drag on a newsgroup, with a single post.
Disproportionality of effort, right?

Observation of shared-moderation systems (such as slashdot) implies
that they can work, but the details are going to be finicky,
complicated, and inelegant.

>> - Carrying both visually richer text (italics!) and
>> modestly-sized graphics.

> What on earth for? Because everything needs to be all singing all dancing?

Because italics are expressive.

> The wonderful thing about usenet is that it is a text medium. You want
> graphics, use the web.

And Doug Wickstrom wrote:

> I don't know if I would go that far, but I find it very useful to
> have full control over how I see a newsgroup message presented to
> me, in terms of font type, size, and format. I don't want to see
> people playing with their formatting, I want the content without
> bells and whistles.

I agree that it's tremendously useful -- probably vital -- for the
reader to ultimately control how his messages are presented. This
doesn't mean that some level of rich-text formatting is impossible.
I *already* use asterisks to indicate emphatic speech; but my display
is an expensive high-resolution CRT, and my OS comes with lots of nice
reading fonts. It's sort of absurd that I can't set my semantic
stylesheet to show emphatic speech in italics, or underlined, or (if
I'm in a self-destructive mood) blinking red.

On the other hand, HTML had lost that war by 1993.

>> - Integrated archival facilities; I appreciate Google groups, but it
>> is, after all, a private service and could shut down tomorrow, or
>> sudden chose to censor the archives.

*Distributed* archival facilities. It should be easy for me, as a
rasff regular, to say "I'll donate 100 megs of space on my machine to
archiving rasff." If Google wants to donate terabytes of storage also,
that's great -- redundancy is important in a distributed, voluntary
system.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Just once, I'd like to vote for the better of two goods.

Michael R Weholt

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 11:38:17 AM7/16/01
to
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in
news:9iv0du$906$1...@news.panix.com:

> I've thought for years that some shared-moderation system must be
> possible -- not so much for concerted. mechanical abuse (which must
> also be dealt with) but for abusive conversation. A troll should
> not be able to launch a week-long drag on a newsgroup, with a
> single post. Disproportionality of effort, right?

This group is often accused of shutting out outsiders. Don't you think
moderation, shared or otherwise, is just asking for more such
accusations?

I'd rather see regulars in a group learn to cope with trolls in the
old-fashioned ways. It's certainly not as tidy as moderation, shared or
otherwise, but it's tidy enough if people exercise some personal
responsibility and discipline about how/when they respond.

> Observation of shared-moderation systems (such as slashdot) implies
> that they can work, but the details are going to be finicky,
> complicated, and inelegant.

And extremely unfortunate, in my view.

--
mrw

mike weber

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 12:52:20 PM7/16/01
to
On 15 Jul 2001 16:19:02 GMT, Loren Joseph MacGregor
<lmac...@garcia.efn.org> typed


>A note of praise for EFN (from someone still a bit resentful over
>a claim, from someone who -doesn't- know anything about filters,
>that if I were seeing -any- spam at all I "should get a -real-
>ISP"). I saw a few of the initial rush of garbage, but nothing
>since. They've done an extremely effective job of filtering out
>the attack and leaving (as far as I can tell) legitimate messages
>alone. Cool beans.
>

If it's still going on, Alltel seems to have figured it out, too.
--
"He had long ago come to the conclusion that there
were no 'things Man was Not Meant To Know'. He was willing
to believe that there were things Man was Too Dumb To
Figure Out." - Mike Kurland
<mike weber> <kras...@mindspring.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com

mike weber

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 12:56:32 PM7/16/01
to
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:04:54 GMT, J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton)
typed

>In article <slrn9l58ar....@panix6.panix.com>
> rand...@panix.com "Randolph Fritz" writes:
>

>
>> - Carrying both visually richer text (italics!) and modestly-sized graphics.
>
>What on earth for? Because everything needs to be all singing all dancing?
>
>The wonderful thing about usenet is that it is a text medium. You want
>graphics, use the web.
>

The graphics bit i couldn't really care about. OTPH, it *would* be
nice to have the range of control over the text i'm sending as a book
publisher has..

Thomas Yan

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 12:40:05 PM7/16/01
to
In article <995285...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,

Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrn9l58ar....@panix6.panix.com>
> rand...@panix.com "Randolph Fritz" writes:
>
>[...]

>>Carrying both visually richer text (italics!) and modestly-sized graphics.
>
>What on earth for? Because everything needs to be all singing all dancing?
>
>The wonderful thing about usenet is that it is a text medium. You want
>graphics, use the web.
>[...]

I hate MIME/HTML posts and gratuitous web flashiness, but it would be
nice to have more control --used appropriately-- over the appearance
of Usenet posts: accents, mathematical symbols, fonts, bold, italic,
underline, color.

I would like DAGs instead of trees for threads: I'd like posts to be
follow-ups to one or more posts, not just one post.

[*] If you visualize each post as a point and draw an arrow
from each post to its immediate parent(s), then
+ "DAG (directed acyclic graph)" is just a fancy way of saying
no loops/"cycles", i.e. no path of arrows from a post back to itself.
+ "tree" is a fancy way of saying a dag where each post has at
most one parent.
--
Thomas Yan (ty...@cs.cornell.edu) I don't speak for Cornell University
Computer Science Department \\ Cornell University \\ Ithaca, NY 14853
(please pardon any lack of capitalization; my hands hurt from typing)

Bernard Peek

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 9:25:08 AM7/16/01
to
In message <WIXSpaEp...@branta.demon.co.uk>, Del Cotter
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes

I'm still using TP6 beta. It's been rock solid from the first public
beta. It does need a faster machine and more memory than TP5.

--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

In search of cognoscenti

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 1:48:14 PM7/16/01
to
rand...@panix.com (Randolph Fritz) writes:
>
> Mark Atwood:

> >
> > For the early users, getting cut off from the `net would cause
> > them to fluck out of school.
>
> (Raps cane on floor.) Mark, time was, Usenet wasn't part of "the
> 'net" at all. The integration of Usenet into the internet came fairly
> late in Usenet's development; being cut off from Usenet didn't mean
> much at the beginning.

Maybe saying "the net" was a bit of a misnomer.

At many academic installations, undergraduates whom the sysadmins
accussed of violating any part of the system's AUP, got kicked off the
computer system. There were few to no appeals.

This was not an idle threat either, it did indeed happen occationally
from USENET abuse.

Robert Sneddon

unread,
Jul 15, 2001, 6:58:31 PM7/15/01
to
In article <H9m47.45481$J91.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Kube-McDowell <K-...@sff.net> writes
>On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:35:48 GMT, dbi...@mediaone.net (David T. Bilek)
>carefully left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:

>
>>No, apparently it's some nutter ex-pat Brit who now lives in India and
>>has vowed to destroy Usenet. Seriously.
>
>Is that the person referred to by the handle "Bloxy"?

Bloxy is a one-trick Skippy, with a thing about the one-time snakepit
known as comp.ai. He doesn't like the idea of moderation (introduced to
comp.ai a while back to keep it from turning into yet another Black Hole
of Usenet), or of voting for newgroups in the big Eight. He won't wander
off into the sucking vortex that is alt.* and newgroup alt.comp.ai for
himself, so he endlessly whines and bitches in news.admin.* about
censorship and Cabals determined to keep his voice stilled. The logical
fallacy of this can be determined by looking at his posting stats -- I
figure the guy has a keyboard and a monitor fixed above his toilet so he
can post while pointing Percy.

The "I hate Usenet" clown referred to is probably Hipcrime. The India
thing is because Indian servers are notoriously open and the operators
don't seem either willing or able to secure them. They also don't seem
to understand they're paying for his bandwidth usage. 'Crime is
moderately intelligent, a halfway-competent coder and not willing to
give an inch. He even got a complete new (well, recycled) hierarchy,
free.* for his pains, thanks to Timmy Skirvin. Not many servers carry
it, thought, as it's even more signal-free than alt.*, and because of
this his campaign continues. He's created some tools that script-kiddies
use to rogue-cancel and flood, and gets blamed for these attacks, even
though he may not be actually involved.

--

Robert Sneddon

Morris M. Keesan

unread,
Jul 16, 2001, 1:49:35 PM7/16/01